TESS was given schedule priority, it launched just short of four weeks after its initially planned launch date that was set years before the launch. That, for SpaceX, is a very good sign.
Quote from: Alexphysics on 02/13/2019 10:48 pmTESS was given schedule priority, it launched just short of four weeks after its initially planned launch date that was set years before the launch. That, for SpaceX, is a very good sign. I disagree, that's not a good sign for interplanetary missions. That tells me, even being given schedule priority, they missed the initial planned launch date by nearly a month.
It will leave Earth with a very high energy: C3 > 29 km2/s2.
Nokia was once king, then it was Blackberry. Then Apple and Samsung arrived.
Quote from: DatUser14 on 02/14/2019 05:10 pmIt will leave Earth with a very high energy: C3 > 29 km2/s2.That makes more sense than > 51 km^2/s^2
According to Wikipedia, since Atlas began development, it has suffered 18 total failures in addition to 2 Low Earth partial failures that would have been total failures if launching a planetary mission. They do not appear to have any better record than SpaceX,that had one launch failure and one test failure.
Quote from: su27k on 02/14/2019 02:22 pmThe whole launch window/recycle ability/subcooled propellant thing is red herring, just look at the our wonderful launch log here, since the introduction of F9 v1.2, pretty much every flight launched within 20 days, starting with static fireStatic fire date is not relevant. It is within 20 days of spacecraft planned launch date.
The whole launch window/recycle ability/subcooled propellant thing is red herring, just look at the our wonderful launch log here, since the introduction of F9 v1.2, pretty much every flight launched within 20 days, starting with static fire
Wishful thinking, but if SpaceX said upfront that they'd launch two identical spacecraft 70's style, for the price of one, then I'd be more sympathetic and it might stir those involved in planetary science to start taking more useful risks.
Other than sentiment, I don’t see the downside of SpaceX taking all of ULA’s business.Nokia was once king, then it was Blackberry. Then Apple and Samsung arrived.Innovate or die. If SpaceX can do it cheaper and just as well, give it all to them. Until someone arrives who does it even better.
Quote from: alang on 02/14/2019 06:57 pmWishful thinking, but if SpaceX said upfront that they'd launch two identical spacecraft 70's style, for the price of one, then I'd be more sympathetic and it might stir those involved in planetary science to start taking more useful risks.Who is going to pay for the second spacecraft
I suspect that a lot of it comes from the preparation driven by having two chances in a lifetime.
Ok, so if nothing else, maybe SpaceX will get additional clarity as to exactly what they'll need to do to achieve the following to an acceptable degree: 1. Schedule Certainty2. Injection Accuracy (extreme)
Tory Bruno made a response on Reddit about this. https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/aqbnza/spacex_protests_nasa_launch_contract_award/egfclfm/?context=1